Primary study · included by 1 review

The effect of low-level laser 810 nm and light-emitting diode photobiomodulation (626 nm) on the stability of the implant and inflammatory markers interleukin-1 beta and prostaglandin E2, around implants.

Memarian 2018 · Memarian Jafar, Ketabi Mohammad, Amini Shahram · Dental research journal · 2018

Included by

Photobiomodulation in Dental Implant Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Non-Cochrane · intervention · 2026 · cited as Memarian 2018 · Reference 49; Figure 3

Outcome this study informs	Pooled effect	Evidence	Certainty
Implant stability (Periotest) Adjunctive photobiomodulation (laser or LED) vs Sham or no photobiomodulation · 8 weeks	MD -0.67 [-1.45, 0.11]	2 studies	GRADE not reported
Implant stability (Periotest) Adjunctive photobiomodulation (laser or LED) vs Sham or no photobiomodulation · all time points	MD -0.55 [-0.84, -0.27]	5 studies	Low
Implant stability (Periotest) Adjunctive photobiomodulation (laser or LED) vs Sham or no photobiomodulation · baseline	MD -0.16 [-0.64, 0.32]	5 studies	GRADE not reported
Implant stability (Periotest) Adjunctive photobiomodulation (laser or LED) vs Sham or no photobiomodulation · 4 weeks	MD -0.92 [-1.49, -0.34]	3 studies	GRADE not reported
Implant stability (Periotest) Adjunctive photobiomodulation (laser or LED) vs Sham or no photobiomodulation · 6 months	MD -0.59 [-1.71, 0.54]	2 studies	GRADE not reported
Implant stability (Periotest) Adjunctive photobiomodulation (laser or LED) vs Sham or no photobiomodulation · 2 weeks	MD -0.04 [-1.71, 1.62]	2 studies	GRADE not reported
Implant stability (Periotest) Adjunctive photobiomodulation (laser or LED) vs Sham or no photobiomodulation · 12 weeks	MD -1.71 [-2.75, -0.67]	2 studies	GRADE not reported

1 including review in total.